Quote:
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.
Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence. In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.
|
I've heard of cases where "exigent circumstances" was used to apprehend a criminal who was witnessed entering a
specific building by police officers, and the officers pursued the criminal into said building without a warrant because they felt that not pursuing and waiting on a warrant would allow the criminal to get away.
That makes sense.
However, I've
never heard of a case where "exigent circumstances" could be used by law enforcement to enter
every structure in a given radius without a warrant
and without any person witnessing that criminal enter any of those structures.
I fully agree that this guy was a lunatic and a danger to society. No one is arguing that. Of course he was an immediate danger to the public. What we're asking is, does that make it okay for officers to forcibly check every structure in a given radius without any reasonable suspicion that he has entered any of those structures? (i.e. a civilian or LEO witnessing the suspect enter a specific structure)
Let's look at a different scenario. A serial murderer is witnessed exiting a home on foot with multiple handguns and a rifle and law enforcement is notified. Is it then okay for law enforcement officers to enter every home in a 2 mile radius to look for the suspect, even if the witness is unable to specify which direction the suspect went or if he even entered any other home in that two-mile radius?
Let me be clear, for all we know, a neighbor of the home in the video might have seen someone enter the home and wasn't sure if they were a resident or not and they tipped authorities. Considering the number of people they yanked from that house, it's entirely possible one of them stepped outside to have a cigarette or something and a neighbor simply witnessed them walking back in afterwards. Who knows.
What I'm trying to establish is that law enforcement can't just enter every structure in a radius of a "last sighting" unless they have some kind of reasonable suspicion that the suspect entered a specific structure.